Large thumbnail image for article
Thumbnail image for article


What Makes a Good Video Game Villain?

The Late Film Critic Roger Ebert famously said:

“Each Film is only as good as its Villain“.[1]

I believe this quote should not only apply to Film, but to all media as well. Some of the most memorable characters from all media are the Villains. Characters such as Darth Vader often become the face of their franchises.

Darth Vader is an iconic Villain Character that has appeared in Many forms of Media, including Video Games.

But why do many of us find such interest in these characters? Personally, I think that the reason why many people identify with bad guys is because as children we are raised to look at these characters as an antithesis of ourselves, we relate to the heroes of our childhood because we see them as an extension of ourselves, we learn from the attitudes and actions of these characters to better ourselves.

If we’re taught to love the heroes of our stories, then surely the opposite should be said for the villains? A memorable villain can make or break a Story. They usually convey undesirable traits and are often portrayed with a dark or otherworldly colour scheme. We look at these characters and see them as someone we shouldn’t be. But, in a twisted way, that makes us more interested in them. Seeing a character that is so detached from who we really are is a fascinating sight for young eyes, by making the villain a character we remember, we learn what leads to their downfall and why their negative actions should not be repeated in order to create a better tomorrow.

Films such as those in the Disney animated canon provide easy accessibility to the conveyed morals that shape us into the people we are today. As a child I saw these sorts of things as dumb fun to divert my attention and quote to my friends at school. As an adult, I find myself respecting the works that shaped me into who I am today.

But, coming back to the Title Question: What makes a good Video Game Villain?

Indeed, the difference between film and game is a diverse one. A film will always be the same; you may notice new things on repeat viewings or come back with a different experience upon revisiting said film. Games, on the other hand, offer the chance to play the game in a variety of ways, whether or not the villain wins depends on the skill of the player. The whole point of a video game is to make the player the Hero. In a film, you want to be Luke Skywalker, in a game you actually can be Luke Skywalker. That is the best possible way you can really describe the differences between film and game.

With that said, being the hero in the game is often an experience designed to give the player an immersion in a fantastic world that is different from their own. But what is the point of all this if there is no threat for the player? Well, that really depends on what type of game it is. Some genres simply aren’t designed to accommodate these sorts of demands and focus primarily on the gameplay. Puzzle games are a prime example of this; games such as those produced by King have no plot and are driven by the gameplay so it can kill a few minutes of your time. There is nothing wrong with this of course. A game without a plot is not necessarily a bad game.

I would argue that the main villain of a puzzle game is the puzzle itself. Science Fiction author Ben Bova has is quoted stating that:

“Character + Problem = Story“.[2]

In a Meta way, the player is the character, the problem is trying to solve the puzzle that the game has imposed onto them, as a result; The story is a player trying to solve a puzzle game. Ultimately, at the heart of every game is a player trying to overcome an opposing force.

So where does this all lead? Well, if we look at everything analysed so far, then there are points about villains who are different from ourselves, villains who are threats, and villains who leave an impression on ourselves. For a video game, the villain being a threat must be a given, comedic or parodic works can usually get away with this due to operating on a "Rule of Funny." But if we look back to the Disney animated canon, we should ask perhaps not; why do people love these villains? But; why don’t I remember these villains? Why do audiences remember Gaston from Beauty and the Beast, but not that fat guy from Pocahontas? (I can’t even remember his name, that’s how boring he is.)

People remember Gaston because he has a memorable personality, a stark contrast with the hero, and is shown to be threatening (Having a catchy musical number helps as well). So with all these traits about this character shown to be used to leave an impact for the audience, let’s compare these with two of gaming most iconic villains:

Case Study 1: Liquid Snake (Metal Gear Solid, 1998)

Let’s look at Liquid; he is the evil twin of the Hero: Solid Snake, he is aggressive and hot headed compared to Solid’s pragmatic and even-tempered nature. He is in control of an army of genetically modified soldiers and is shown to be able to survive feats that otherwise should have killed any normal human being. He is driven by a hatred for his father: Big Boss, wanting to achieve what Big Boss failed to do during his lifetime, viewing the politicians of the world as corrupt. His hatred for Solid Snake comes from his belief that Solid received all the superior genes of Big Boss when they were born, making him want to prove himself against his superior brother who didn’t even know he existed before the events of the game. Having a hammy personality and a British accent is a good way to make a villain stand out amongst the others around him.

Case Study 2: Bowser (Mario Series, 1985-Present)

King Bowser Koopa is the leader of the Koopa Army, he is the arch-enemy of Mario, being a giant fire breathing turtle, he towers over the hero and has spent the past 30 years sending waves and waves of mooks out to stop our favorite Italian plumber. His goal is to kidnap the Princess of the Mushroom Kingdom to uh

Something is not right here. I think nearly anyone can tell you that Bowser has had much more of an impact on pop culture than Liquid has, yet lacks many of the attributes that seem to make up a memorable villain; having your butt kicked for over 30 years? Unclear motivations? A complete lack of similarities or contrast with the hero? So what does that mean for this subject matter?

Simple, there are two types of Video Game Villains. For the sake of clearing up confusion, we shall refer to our Bowsers as √¢‚ǨÀúHeavy Villains’ and our Liquids as √¢‚ǨÀúPlot Villains’.

Heavy Villains

A heavy villain should be the primary threat in a game with little to no plot. A Character that exists solely to be an obstacle to the hero and will have little to no personality. This is not necessarily a bad thing though; these games will likely be driven by gameplay rather than the plot. Most old video games will feature villains like these. It is a little known fact that traditional video games would have writers brought onto the project late in a game’s development, with freelancers being told to make sense of everything that the developers had created, this trend of development seemed to die out around the time 3D gaming came along.

Heavy villains will usually be the leader of whatever army that the hero has been fighting throughout the entire game, they will appear at the end of the game as the final boss. If a game has multiple villains, then it is likely that at least one of them will be a heavy villain, a character that only exists to be defeated by the hero. If a game really does have no plot, then the final fight will likely be the only place where the heavy appears. A good example of this is the Skaarj Queen from Unreal. You’ve been fighting whole armies of aliens for the entire game, here’s their leader.

Heavy villains may also be recurring throughout the entire game. If they exist only to present another threat to the hero without ever showing any depth as a character, then they still fit under this trait. A Classic example of this is from the game Altered Beast, where Big Bad Neff appears at the end of each level to take a form to challenge the hero with whatever abilities that they have at that point.

I understand that some readers may get the wrong idea and think that I am saying that Heavy Villains are bad. Not at all. The purpose of Heavy Villains is to serve as an obstacle to the Hero by providing a challenge for them to overcome; if they fit this trait then they have served their purpose.

Neff (Pictured Right) is the Big Bad of classic Arcade Game Altered Beast. His catchphrase of 'WELCOME TO YOUR DOOM" has become memetic because of the strange delivery of the line.

A slight degree of personality can be applied to heavy villains, having them laugh or talk during their fight is a sure way to make them more memorable to the player. The fact Neff chants “WELCOME TO YOUR DOOM“ before the start of every fight in Altered Beast is what has made him a memorable villain who stood out in an era where villains were typically not given much characterization other than √¢‚ǨÀúbeing evil’.

Bowser is an iconic villain because he has been fought so many times by gaming’s most iconic hero; his fights are designed to provide a fine level of challenge and make use of the player’s ability to handle the character, using what has been learned to defeat him. The limitations of gaming’s early years often led villains to being written this way, it also easier to write villains this way due to having to apply less characteristics to them, something that is still commonly used today in games that are light on plot.

Plot Villains

In the 2000 superhero film Unbreakable, it is stated that there are two types of villains:

√¢‚ǨÀúThe Soldier Villain: Who fights the hero with his Hands’
√¢‚ǨÀúThe Arch-Enemy: who fights the Hero with his mind’.

Heavy villains will always be classed as √¢‚ǨÀúsoldier villains’, but the plot villain will either be one or the other, but in order to make a good villain, they must feature enough of the tropes that make up these existing traits from either of these categories. That is what makes a good villain in my mind.

The best way to sum up what I feel to be the difference between a heavy villain and a plot villain is this: A good √¢‚ǨÀúheavy’ villain is fun to fight. A good √¢‚ǨÀúplot’ villain is fun to watch.

In preparation for writing this article, I asked some of my Skype friends which traits made up a good villain; most of the responses seemed to match what I expected to get from these questions. The discussion would often go off into speeches about what traits my friends disliked in villains, traits that exist only to make the villain more evil without adding anything else to the character.

This got me thinking about character traits that are universally applied towards what makes a good villain, after a lot of brainstorming, I was able to sum up what I felt the five main traits that made up a good villain, as a rule of thumb, I find that the best plot villains contain at least three of these traits, any less than that then you need to rewrite your villain.

So to finally sum up the main question that this article has been trying to solve, here are the five traits that I feel make a good villain:

Contrast with the Hero

“In a Comic, you know how you can tell who the arch-villain’s going to be? He’s the exact opposite of the hero.“

This quote comes from the 2000 film Unbreakable, and it really does sum up how a villain can be identified in comparison to the hero. Let’s look at probably the best example of this in all of fiction: Batman and The Joker. Batman is dark, stoic, muscular, rational and a pacifist who protects people in the name of justice. The Joker is colourful, crazy, thin, psychotic and gleefully murders anyone he feels like with the sole intention of spreading chaos wherever he goes. There is a reason why he is Batman’s most prolific enemy since the contrast with Batman presents an accurate representation of the worst kinds of people that the hero has to deal with all the time.

The Joker serves as a perfect Contrast to Batman, being the complete antithesis of him in every way.

Personally though, simply being the inverse of the hero should not be what defines the villains relationship with the hero, I feel that the similarities between the two often make for a more interesting dynamic. If the hero is similar to the villain, then what’s stopping the Hero from suffering a face-heel turn and becoming the villain? Does the villain intentionally goad the hero into doing bad deeds?

In Skyrim, the Thieves Guild quest-line ends with the Big Bad taunting the hero over their misdeeds as a thief and being motivated solely by greed, deconstructing the √¢‚ǨÀúhonour amongst thieves’ philosophy that they had been following through the entire quest-line. A response you can give to this is to brush off what has been said and tell the Villain that you just want the treasure he has, essentially proving everything he said to be completely right. You can even use the tool he had been using to achieve his goals for your own, so what makes the player character any different from the villain?

“There’s a killer inside you“ √¢‚Ǩ‚Äú Liquid Snake. Metal Gear Solid.

I find dynamics like this to be far more interesting that hot/cold dynamics that most plots have. These plots are written to make the player question if they really are the type of person that the villain is claiming they are. Games that competently handle moral choices are good at this, although I would like to go into more detail about these another time.

A villain who shares no similarities, nor are they the opposite of the hero in any significant way or form, does not fit under this example.

An example of a villain who has poor contrast with the hero is Red Faction. In this game you play as a miner on Mars who partakes in overthrowing the corrupt upper class that is intent on working you to death. The main villain is an evil scientist who creates mutants. There is no connection here, no similarities and no level of differentiation between the two characters. For me, this is one of the reasons why this villain leaves so little of an impact when thinking about this game. It doesn’t help that the villain is introduced one-third of the way through the game, is killed of halfway through the game, gets replaced by someone even more boring than he is and the fact the game wasn’t very good to begin with.

The hero contrast can even be applied to heavy villains, a classic example of this is Sonic the Hedgehog. Sonic is nature, Robotnik is technology. It’s a contrast so simple, subtle and straightforward that most people forget about it.

Mr. Hedgehog, I think you and I are destined to do this forever...


This trait should be fairly obvious. If a villain fails to present themselves as a source of intimidation to the player, then there is no reason to get invested in what is happening since if beating them seems so easy then surely anyone could do the job. Comedic works may be able to get away with this since these works tend to not take themselves too seriously.

Heavy villains should usually take on this trait since their purpose is to fight the hero, this character may receive little exposure from the plot outside of this, there is no problem with this of course, since the villain will fit their role in the story and obstacles are a common for the hero to progress and develop as a character.

A plot villain, who is presented as no threat either physically or mentally, is not a good villain. It can make the villain seem well out of his league when at odds with the hero and makes you wonder why anyone would follow them. Coming back to the Bowser argument, I have always wondered why his followers still persist with his leadership when all his schemes over the past 30 years end up with him falling in lava or something. This may be why Bowser works better as a heavy villain rather than a plot villain, giving him a deep personality would likely contradict with whatever character elements have been following him around for the past several decades.

The threat of the villain need not be present in size, but in leadership and mental prowess. One of my favourite villains in all of video games is Karras from Thief II: The Metal Age. He is never fought once in the entire game and the one time the Hero gets to see him in person they are separated by a big glass wall and Karras does not notice he is there, but the level of threat from him comes from how he commands the mooks present through the levels, taunting the hero with his superior power, the key to defeating him is not to fight him directly, but to outsmart him, his mooks are the main threat, but he is the brains of the operation.

Father Karras from Thief II: The Metal Age never fights the hero directly, preferring to order his army of robots to do the job for him, his command and authority make him a threat for the hero, Garrett, who can only fight his robots with special trick arrows that are limited in stock.

The threat presented to the player can go wrong in the complete opposite direction however, a villain who is presented as too powerful will frustrate the player and make them question why they are bothering to fight this guy if he just gets back up and laughs. A prime example of the threat of a villain being used completely wrong is Rorke from Call of Duty: Ghosts. In the Climax of the game, he is shot in the chest with a revolver, drowned in a sunken train and seemingly killed. Then during the mid-credits scene he somehow turns up again to kidnap the hero, despite the layout of the scene meaning he would have to swim around the heroes in order to grab them from behind. By all means, this man should be dead. This breaks whatever believability the game may have had at this point (as believable as you can get in a game where South America rules the world) and comes off as a deus ex machina just to set up a sequel hook that nobody wants.

Ultimately, the villain who is set up as a threat has to deliver on this, the Big Bad will usually be the final boss of a game, if not, then the final threat that hero has to face will likely be the villains pet or right-hand man. The deliverance of the villain’s threat will be the ultimate factor in showing how challenging they are. I despise games that have the final villain taken out in a quick-time event since this diminishes the value of any skill that the player has gained during the events of the game, boiling down what should be a challenging encounter to a √¢‚ǨÀúPress X to Not Die’ situation.

The √¢‚ǨÀúPress X to Not Die’ trope is one of the worst tropes that can be implemented into a game, this trope is increasingly common in modern games and is just a lazy way to get out of programming a boss fight with the flimsy excuse of √¢‚ǨÀúmaking the game cinematic’. It diminishes the threat of the villain and ruins the immersion that the player may have been building up throughout the experience. Even simply pulling the trigger on the villain may be a decent alternative if the threat comes from them and their minions, simply because it feels like you’re actually the one finishing the job, there is still a chance that they can kill you and the only way to not die by their hands is to shoot first, meaning the threat of failure is still present. The only way you can fail on a QTE villain is if you are bad at Simon Says. I may revisit this subject in more depth since I feel that at this point I have gone off topic here. So let’s just move onto the next point


Personality is the best way to make the player identify with a villain, it can give insight to how they are feeling about a situation and can even humanize them. I find the most interesting villains to be the ones who have a positive outlook at the start of their stories, but are shown to slip into evil when their well-intentioned plans go awry; this should be reflected when the player sees how they act.

Personality can often be overlooked when writing a villainous character, if this is the case then the Hero should be the most rounded character in the game. An example of this is in Max Payne where Big Bad Nicole Horne doesn’t really have much of a personality going for her and she merely serves as a final obstacle for Max to face, however, Max himself makes up for it by being a tragic hero with a straightforward motivation and a lot of depth.

That being said, most game creators opt to giving a brief snippet of personality to a villain, heavy villains are common to having some degree of personality, however small it may be. Something as simple as chuckling during a fight will present the villain as affably evil when they are not presented with anything else. Most retro games will have a brief sliver of personality to make the villain memorable as an individual. It’s simply used to make the villain have more personality than a concrete wall.

If the villain has family or loved one, then how they react to them or show their relationship can be a good way of determining that characters personality. In Hitman: Absolution, Big Bad Blake Dexter is presented as a greedy Jerkass throughout the entire game, but when The hero kidnaps his son for interrogation, he shows his human side by reacting in anger when news of his disappearance is delivered to him. During his villainous breakdown he even asks forgiveness from his son for failing him. It certainly adds a layer of human relatability to the character and makes him stand out in a series where most of the bad guys are punch clock villains who simple exist to be killed by the hero.

Despite being a Corrupt Hick-type character through most of the game. Blake Dexter's sole redeeming trait is the affection for his son.

Above all else, the villain’s personality should not annoy the player. This is where the use of personality can backfire when writing a villain. A game I hate is called Haze; the main villain is a man-child who refuses to listen to reason from the Hero and acts like an obnoxious over crazed sports fan. If the intention for this character was to be as insufferable as possible so it would be fun to kill him, then the game failed at doing that due to how dull and buggy the game was. This comes back into the threat of the villain, I never felt like this character was threatening (I beat his boss fight in four seconds). I feel like the intention was to have the characters immaturity come off as unpredictable and threatening, but it comes off more as the attitude of an irritating frat boy.

A character who did pull off the √¢‚ǨÀúimmature, unpredictable and threatening’ personality is The Joker from Batman: Arkham Asylum. Now this is a character that can leave an impact solely by his personality. Throughout the game, the Joker is constantly taunting Batman over loudspeakers and providing commentary on how Batman is defeating his own mooks, he is willing to crack jokes at every opportunity, even when those jokes are at the expense of his own men. His crazed appearance reflects his personality as well, his multi-coloured aesthetic is representative of the wild and crazy attitude he has on the world, whereas Haze’s bad guy is just another guy in armour.

So to end off this section, I feel like I should address some points that my friends brought up when I asked them about the subject matter:

“Also I really like villains that are just... sort of genuinely nice people but just happen to be on the other side of the fight Or a villain with a sense of morals. Like, they're only antagonistic to others when they're actually enemies“

Undyne from Undertale presents herself as a hot blooded warrior, but is shown to be insightful and caring when you befriend her, while still displaying an over-the-top attitude while doing mundane tasks. Played for Laughs.

A Game that comes to mind from this quote is Undertale. A game where every initially antagonistic character is shown to be a good person that has been either misled or believes they have to defeat you for a better purpose. It’s a game where you can appeal to these characters and befriend every single enemy you face. The first boss in particular stands out since she is only fighting you because she wants to protect you from the other monsters throughout the game, displaying a motherly affection towards the hero and not wanting to see them die like many other children before you. It’s a rare case where personality is incorporated into gameplay since the characters attacks will actively try to avoid you if you take too much damage. Undertale is a game that stands out for being able to personify all of its major characters, even those that are antagonistic to start off with.

Motivation/ Believability

“They gotta have a good reason“ √¢‚Ǩ‚Äú My Skype Friend

This really should be a no-brainer, but it’s surprisingly common to have this villain trait be left out. A quote from Ben Bova stands out to me that not only sums up villains in a nutshell, but deconstructs the idea of a villain as well:

“In the real world there are no villains. No one actually sets out to do evil. Yes, there are madmen and murderers and rapists and crooked politicians and greedy land developers and all sorts of villainous behaviors. But each of those people believes that he is doing what is necessary, and maybe even good.“ √¢‚Ǩ‚Äú Ben Bova. [2]

This raises the question of why a villain would perform what they do in-game. A villain that wants to do bad deeds just because they can simply cannot be described as a good character, both figuratively and literally. There is no way anyone can relate to them and it also raises the question of why anyone would work for them.

In Undertale, King Asgore wants to kill you so he can use your soul to free the monsters from the underground world they are trapped in. Before and during the fight with him it becomes clear that he does not want to actually fight you but feels that he has no choice so he can save his people. Not only is this an understandable motivation, the solemn emotions he displays during this shows that he takes no joy in doing this, making a much more deep character than most video game villains.

But what about the Joker? I hear you ask. Yes, I certainly raved about him being a great villain, but when you get down to it, his motivation really is just because he feels like doing what he does, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, the whole point of his character is that he is an anarchist, his whole motivation is to cause chaos wherever he goes, and honestly, I do think you can create a compelling and memorable villain even if they don’t have a strong motivation.

Even if the motivation isn’t clear, sometimes it’s more challenging and fun for the player to deduce what their reasoning is through observation. Karras from Thief II is never explicitly given a motivation or much in the way of a backstory, but the most notable feature about his character is the fact that he speaks with a thick lisp in his voice. With that character trait, it allows the player to determine their own interpretation of his backstory, giving the player a good idea on why he is performing his actions without ever explicitly telling it and making him far more interesting.

The Xenomorphs are the Iconic titular creatures from the Alien Franchise, which has branched off into Video Games.

Heavy villains usually don’t follow this trait. After all, does anyone even care why Bowser kidnaps the princess anymore? The arcade nature of heavy villains will make them solely a hostility to the hero and if they do have a motivation then it will likely be either greed or to summon a giant monster to take over the world. I suppose wanting to take over the world is as good a reason as any for many villains, after all, the player may not be aware of what their intentions are if they succeed, many of these characters can be interpreted as well-intentioned extremists if you look at it from a certain point of view. Heavy villains who are simply mindless creatures such as the Xenomorphs from various Alien games do not really need a motivation since their whole purpose is to survive, as is your motivation to survive against them.

“No Motivation is Boring“ √¢‚Ǩ‚Äú My Skype Friend

Now is the point where I explain what kind of impact a character with no motivation can have on a player. In Battlefield 3, Big Bad Solomon wants to nuke New York? Why? I have no idea. The CIA trusts him well enough to take everything he says at face value, even though he displays zero redeeming qualities, even the qualities he does have can be counted on a single hand. So not only do we have a case of a villain who has no motivation but also lacks the believability to make the player invested in the plot. And I only bring it up since Battlefield 3 insists on being a plot heavy game, with character death, scripted cutscenes and quick time events scattered throughout. If Solomon’s motivation was ever explained in the game, then I don’t remember it. Solomon may stand out as one of the most boring villains in a story-driven campaign I have ever seen and stands out as an example of how not to write a villain. Remember, a villain who is evil for the sake of being evil is a poorly written villain.

Do I care if the Villain Wins?

This is probably the most important factor to having an effective villain, since it ultimately factors in everything that the player has been playing for throughout the entire game. If the player does not care if the bad guy wins, then that probably means they do not care about the game. Whether or not the player cares if the villains wins or not will usually take more than the traits that have been described here, but the primary reason for factoring into this trait is how invested the player is in the game.

If the player cares if the villain wins, then this is a win-win situation for developers, since the player is motivated to complete the game that has been worked on for so long.

Alternatively, if the player does not care if the villain wins it can be for one of two reasons;

  • The game is so uninvesting and flat that the player has lost all motivation to continue playing.
  • The gameplay is the main focus of the game and is so enjoyable that the player simply does not care if the villain wins or loses just as long as they can keep experiencing the game for what it is.

Assuming the player does not care if the villain wins yet is enjoying the game, this will be a testament to a games playstyle, being able to make the experience addicting despite a lack of story investment from the player.

Heavy villains will almost never factor into this trait, since the player’s whole motivations for beating them will be to experience the gameplay that is being presented to them, of which they are merely an obstacle to be overcome.

But if we’re looking at this trait from what makes a good video game villain, then the first option will be the one most desired. Making the player feel like the hero who will stop the villain is the primary motivation for most people who play a game.

Does the villain's goal feel similar to something that could happen in real life? Does the villain's goal harm another character that you care about? These are the questions that can determine whether or not the player really cares about what is happening within the game:

Do I care if Solomon Nukes New York City? No, the world is shallow and all the characters are unlikable – Battlefield 3.

Do I care if Adrian Malprave substitutes the Leaders of the world with her clones? No, the scenario is too absurd and fantastic; besides, the end result probably wouldn’t be too different from what real politicians are like √¢‚Ǩ‚Äú 007: Agent Under Fire.

Do I care if President Panay continues his corrupt reign and exploits the people of Panau for profitability? No, I’m having way too much fun blowing stuff up! √¢‚Ǩ‚Äú Just Cause 2.

Do I care if General Morden takes over this unidentified country? No, But I’m having so much fun that I’m going to kick his ass anyway! √¢‚Ǩ‚Äú Metal Slug.

General Morden is the Main Villain from the Metal Slug series. He is what I class as a 'Heavy' Villain due to the game's lack of plot and heavy focus on action gameplay.

Do I care if Gruntilda transforms Tootie into a grotesque monster in order to regain her own youth? Yes, I have a sister myself and I would not be happy if some kidnapper took her (although the part about absorbing her youth probably wouldn’t happen) √¢‚Ǩ‚Äú Banjo-Kazooie.

Do I care if Liquid Snake uses Metal Gear to wage war on the world? Yes, the entire cast is likable and if he wins that means we lose and countless innocents die – Metal Gear Solid.

Do I care if Asgore kills me and breaks the barrier to release the Monsters to the Surface world? Yes, I want to live but I respect his purpose, there has to be another way – Undertale.





Login to comment